Third Party Press

Mauser DSM34 Serial No. 63

bruce98k

bruce98k

Super Over the Top Moderator -1/2
Staff member
Thought I would post this separately from SN. 102.
Taken today at a photo session for the book and owner desires to remain anonymous.
 

Attachments

  • _DSC7439a.jpg
    _DSC7439a.jpg
    291 KB · Views: 93
  • _DSC7441a.jpg
    _DSC7441a.jpg
    297.9 KB · Views: 94
  • _DSC7444a.jpg
    _DSC7444a.jpg
    290.3 KB · Views: 88
  • _DSC7445a.jpg
    _DSC7445a.jpg
    296.2 KB · Views: 81
63

Exceptional, fantastic rifle. I presume the rest of the rifle is exceptional as well and hope more of it will be pictured in the book. I wonder what else might be out there.
 
I second that. It is the type of rifle that I collect and I would bid hard on that rifle if one like it came up for auction.
 
Sn 63

Not sure if this rifle is in the new 22 book or not.
Jim or Steve do you know?

Rest of gun is just as nice - about 95-97% overall.

B.
 
I have an early Greenheart and Suhl DSM-34 myself. Both are below serial number 80. The Suhl is in great shape but the Greenheart is not as perfect. Both are super accurate.
 
Great rifle... and discussion will be interesting. How is the wood numbered, and are the small parts numbered?
 
Bob in OHIO said:
Great rifle... and discussion will be interesting. How is the wood numbered, and are the small parts numbered?
Click to expand...

I have not seen this one. I would also be very interested in seeing the wood and any small parts numbering on it? Would not want to comment without seeing that information, at least in good photographs. Jim has not viewed this one yet, as he is having difficulty with logging in.
Steve
 
Is it too late to make it into the book? Rifles will continue to come out of the woodwork as time goes on.
 
Some general first thoughts, not knowing if we will learn more on this one or not. This seems to be the consensus here and abroad from the "Gelehrten" on the subject. The size of the number stamps (used for serial number) is a puzzle. The number itself (63) also seems out of place for standard practice at Mauser in 1934. The safety and bolt stop/ejector box do not appear to be numbered, as one might expect them to be. The stock wood seems sharp and pristine, indicating it has been well-kept, and likely not used as a training rifle with repeated use.
It is POSSIBLE that this may have been one of the rifles made for contract signers, delivered along with a full set of drawings and specifications for making the rifle. If so, the number may have been added later by the recipient, or ? unknown. Very doubtful that Mauser would have anticipated enough licensees to have numbered tool-room example rifles this high, so it seems unlikely that they put the number there.
This is all just food for thought, with no conclusions so much as implied. Views of wood and action disassembled might help answer some of the questions.
Steve
 
luftmacher said:
Some general first thoughts, not knowing if we will learn more on this one or not. This seems to be the consensus here and abroad from the "Gelehrten" on the subject. The size of the number stamps (used for serial number) is a puzzle. The number itself (63) also seems out of place for standard practice at Mauser in 1934. The safety and bolt stop/ejector box do not appear to be numbered, as one might expect them to be. The stock wood seems sharp and pristine, indicating it has been well-kept, and likely not used as a training rifle with repeated use.
It is POSSIBLE that this may have been one of the rifles made for contract signers, delivered along with a full set of drawings and specifications for making the rifle. If so, the number may have been added later by the recipient, or ? unknown. Very doubtful that Mauser would have anticipated enough licensees to have numbered tool-room example rifles this high, so it seems unlikely that they put the number there.
This is all just food for thought, with no conclusions so much as implied. Views of wood and action disassembled might help answer some of the questions.
Steve
Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts. My first impressions were something was a little diff. More info would definitely help the understanding of what this is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top